| 50% is probably unrealistic. Nobody really wants to diminish their storage by 50%. Let's set a fixed threshold -- 100GB, say -- and play out both methods. Method A: One or more ballast files are created, totalling 100GB. The machine runs out of storage and grinds to a halt. Hopefully someone notices soon or gets a generic alert that it has ceased, remembers that there's ballast files, and deletes one or more of them. They then poke it with a stick and get it going again, and set forth to resolve whatever was causing the no-storage condition (adding disk, cleaning trash, or whatever). Method B: A specific alert that triggers with <100GB of free space. Someone sees this alert, understands what it means (because it is descriptive instead of generic), and logs in to resolve the low-storage condition (however that is done -- same as Method A). There is no stick-poking. Method C: The control. We do nothing, and run out of space. Panic ensues. Articles are written. --- Both A and B methods have an equal number of alerts for each low-disk condition (<100GB). Both methods work, in that they can form the impetus to free up some space. But Method A relies on a system to crash, while Method B does not rely upon a crash at all. I think that the lack of crash makes Method B rather superior all on its own. (Method C sucks.) |